Summary: Mr X complained how the Council handled his application for a Freedom Pass. We find the Council was at fault for failing to explain why it would not accept Mr X’s medical documentation. It was also at fault for failing to evidence it had considered exercising discretion in Mr X’s case given the issues he had using the system and for how it handled his complaint. These faults caused Mr X frustration, upset and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained how the Council handled his application for a Freedom Pass. He says the Council refused to accept the medical documentation he provided without a valid reason. He also says the Council unfairly insisted he had to use the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) checker even though he repeatedly explained the issues he had with the system.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused distress and upset. He also says it has had a financial impact.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. The Transport Act 2000 says concessionary travel is available to passengers over 65 and any passenger a council decides is disabled. In London, a concessionary travel pass is called a Freedom Pass.
8. There are several categories of disabled people who are entitled to a concessionary travel pass, including people who would be refused a driving licence because of a medical condition.

What happened

9. This chronology includes an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
10. Mr X has received a Freedom Pass from the Council for over 20 years. He is eligible because he has a medical condition which would prevent him from being granted a driving licence.
11. Mr X applied to renew his Freedom Pass in late December 2024. The Council emailed Mr X in early January 2025 and said the information he provided was out of date. It asked him to provide identification documents. It also asked for a letter from within the last year from a clinic or a specialist stating his medical condition was controlled or uncontrolled with or without medication.
12. Mr X provided the Council with further documentation. The Council responded and refused Mr X’s application. It said the GP letter he provided was insufficient. The medical evidence needed to be from a clinic or specialist.
13. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision. He said it had rejected his application, but his condition remained the same. He provided further letters from his GP. The Council responded and rejected Mr X’s appeal. It said he had not provided the correct medical evidence or a letter from the DVLA which said it had revoked his driving licence.
14. Mr X applied for a Freedom Pass again in early April. He provided a letter from the DVLA which said his licence had been refused, and he was not entitled to drive because of his medical condition. He also provided some medical evidence.
15. The Council discussed Mr X’s case internally in May and raised concerns about the legitimacy of Mr X’s DVLA documents.
16. The Council emailed Mr X in early June and asked him to attend an appointment so it could complete a DVLA check to verify his documents.
17. Mr X provided the Council with a letter from his neurologist on the same day.
18. Mr X emailed the Council after he attended the appointment. He said he could not log onto the DVLA checker. He said this was because his name on his driving licence and his passport differed. He had started the process of changing the name on his licence, but this would take time. He suggested an alternative way of proving the DVLA had revoked his licence.
19. The Council invited Mr X to attend another appointment to complete the DVLA check.
20. Mr X emailed the Council in mid-June and provided a letter from the DVLA. This said it had revoked his licence. He asked if he still needed to attend the appointment. The Council responded and told Mr X he would still need to attend his appointment.
21. Mr X could not access the DVLA checker via the Council’s required method during the second appointment. He accessed a different system, which said he had no current entitlement to drive. Mr X says the Council refused to accept this evidence.
22. Mr X complained to the Council in early July. He said he was unhappy with how it had handled his application. He said he had provided all the relevant documents, but it had wrongly refused his application. He also said it had failed to explain why his medical evidence was inadequate.
23. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said the DVLA checker did not require his name. Once he put his driving licence number, national insurance number and postcode into the system it would show his driving status. The DVLA checker did not show his licence had been revoked. It said it had told him to contact the DVLA about the issues with his name. It completed these checks for all applicants. It could not issue a Freedom Pass until the DVLA checker showed his licence has been revoked.
24. Mr X sent the Council an email. He said when he called the DVLA, the officers said it does state revoked on his licence. He had provided a certificate from the DVLA which stated his licence was revoked. Officers had refused to speak to the DVLA on the phone. He said he accepted the DVLA checker did not require his name. However, the checker required his licence number and national insurance number. His name was different on his driving licence and national insurance number. However, he had provided other proof of identification. He asked why it would not accept the letter from the medical specialist when it had previously asked for proof from the DVLA or a letter from a medical specialist.
25. Mr X emailed the Council in early October and provided a letter from the DVLA. This said his licence had been revoked, and his name could not be changed. He also asked for an update on the medical evidence from his previous email. The Council responded and said it had granted Mr X a Freedom Pass.

Back to top

Analysis

26. The Council told Mr X he would need to provide either a letter from the DVLA which said it had revoked his driving licence or a letter from a clinic or a specialist stating his medical condition was controlled or uncontrolled with or without medication. Mr X provided the Council with a letter from his neurologist in June 2025 which said his condition was not fully controlled and he was taking medication. However, the Council failed to explain to Mr X why this letter was insufficient and why it could not provide him with a Freedom Pass based on this information. This is fault. Mr X asked for an explanation several times, but the Council failed to provide a response.
27. The Council had concerns about the legitimacy of the information Mr X provided from the DVLA. It was entitled to call him in for an appointment to check his details. However, Mr X was having difficulties using the system because of the formatting issues with his name. While he does not need to use his name to log in, he had to input his driving licence number and national insurance number. His name on his driving licence is different to his name on his national insurance records. The DVLA explained to Mr X that his personal details differed on both records, which is why he could not use the checker, and it could not amend his records. It provided an alternative way of accessing his driving licence details, such as using a code. The Council failed to accept this alternative method. It insisted Mr X had to use the DVLA checker, but Mr X repeatedly explained why, having spoken to the DVLA, this would not work.
28. The Council has not evidenced it considered exercising discretion in Mr X’s case given the difficulties outlined above. This is fault. Also, as I have stated above, Mr X had provided medical evidence which the Council had previously requested and said it could accept instead of a letter from the DVLA. Therefore, it is unclear why this did not meet the Council’s requirements, especially considering the difficulties Mr X was experiencing with the DVLA checker.
29. The Council granted Mr X a Freedom Pass in October 2025. It said it did this because Mr X provided a letter which said his licence had been revoked. It also said it made checks with the DVLA. However, Mr X had provided the Council with a letter from the DVLA in June 2025 which stated his licence had been revoked. He has also confirmed he could not use the DVLA checker when the Council eventually issued his Freedom Pass, even though it had previously insisted he needed to use this system. Therefore, it is unclear why the Council was satisfied with the information from October 2025 when it was not dissimilar to the information Mr X had previously provided. The Council has failed to explain this and its lack of clarity is fault.
30. The officer that responded to Mr X’s complaint was the officer he had complained about. This was inappropriate and is fault. The Council should have asked another officer to deal with Mr X’s complaint to ensure he had an independent oversight of his concerns.
31. The Council’s faults outlined above have caused Mr X significant frustration and upset. He was put to the inconvenience of repeatedly asking questions that went unanswered. The faults with the Council’s complaints handling have compounded this injustice. He also has uncertainty that but for the Council’s faults, he may have been awarded a Freedom Pass sooner. I have made suitable recommendations to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Action

32. By 2 October 2026 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Pay Mr X £250.

33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman